What is your thought on marriage?

[Petrolheadia]

I just want unbiased, scientific evidence that shows that consenting adult having sex has negative side-effects when it comes to their health.

Got any sources on that too? Cause I can assure you, I wouldn't want to drink any water that came from the Nile or from Rome's lead pipes.

Ok, here's the deal, you give me sources on your claims, or you just prove that your spouting nonsense. Pick one.

I never claimed it was bad for you physical functioning, I said it is sad that it's becoming so clinical. I have no interest in arguing for or against on clinical grounds, I say clinical justification of sex is sad. Just as clinical justification of love would be.

It's not as much a justification as an honest analysis.

[The Parkus Empire]

I never claimed it was bad for you physical functioning, I said it is sad that it's becoming so clinical. I have no interest in arguing for or against on clinical grounds, I say clinical justification of sex is sad. Just as clinical justification of love would be.

It's not as much a justification as an honest analysis.

Why is clinical justification even important?

[New haven america]

I just want unbiased, scientific evidence that shows that consenting adult having sex has negative side-effects when it comes to their health.

Got any sources on that too? Cause I can assure you, I wouldn't want to drink any water that came from the Nile or from Rome's lead pipes.

Ok, here's the deal, you give me sources on your claims, or you just prove that your spouting nonsense. Pick one.

I never claimed it was bad for you physical functioning, I said it is sad that it's becoming so clinical. I have no interest in arguing for or against on clinical grounds, I say clinical justification of sex is sad. Just as clinical justification of love would be.

It's not clinical justification, it's clinical analysis. People want to know the possible effects of a certain activity, food, drink, etc... or how something works. Then scientists and doctors study it to determine why something happens, and the good and bad effects of something. Is that really such a terrible thing?

Take your above example of love, we know that love is caused by an excess release of: Oxytocin, vasopressin, testosterone, estrogen, and dopamine into the brain when a certain object/person in introduced. That doesn't change the actual effects of love, it just gives us a greater understanding of what it is and how it works.

[Oil exporting People]

I just want unbiased, scientific evidence that shows that consenting adult having sex has negative side-effects when it comes to their health.

I hereby reiterate my question: Do you want physical, mental, or evidence for both?

[Thermodolia]

*snip*

Um no I read it. I guess I just have a beef with the verbiage used. The title should refrain from saying AIDS epidemic when they mean HIV. But again HIV isn't a death sentence. Not to say that it isn't fun.

However none of those places where those new strains are popping up are the USA so I really don't care. We can close our borders if we need to. Your article also said that HIV is becoming resistant to the easy forms of treatment. There are more powerful treatments available, mainly in the first world.

Also all diseases weather sexual or not are constantly becoming resistant to drugs. It's a fact of life and really isn't cause for concern especially as the article states that they aren't yet resistant but they might be. However it doesn't say how long till that "might be" happens.

[Oil exporting People]

Um no I read it. I guess I just have a beef with the verbiage used. The title should refrain from saying AIDS epidemic when they mean HIV. But again HIV isn't a death sentence. Not to say that it isn't fun.

The second half of this shows quite clearly you didn't or you didn't even bother to objectively think on it. Simply put, HIV without medication inevitably leads to AIDs, and said medications are either tapped out production wise or the disease is becoming resistant to them.

However none of those places where those new strains are popping up are the USA so I really don't care. We can close our borders if we need to. Your article also said that HIV is becoming resistant to the easy forms of treatment.

Yes, because the uproar over the travel ban and the quarantine of medical professionals who came back here after the Ebola outbreak back in 2014 show closing the borders is completely politically possible, right? This isn't even getting into the fact that, due to the nature of our globalized economy, you can't shut the border down without causing an economic collapse nor does it address the fact they're already seeing large numbers of antibiotic resistance strains in Mexico and smaller numbers here in the U.S.

There are more powerful treatments available, mainly in the first world.

Which are insanely costly and limited in production, as the article outlines. Eventually, the disease will adapt to them to anyway; it only took it about ~20 years to do such with the current treatment options.

Also all diseases weather sexual or not are constantly becoming resistant to drugs. It's a fact of life and really isn't cause for concern especially as the article states that they aren't yet resistant but they might be. However it doesn't say how long till that "might be" happens.

This definitely confirms to me you didn't even read the headline of the article:

[Thermodolia]

Um no I read it. I guess I just have a beef with the verbiage used. The title should refrain from saying AIDS epidemic when they mean HIV. But again HIV isn't a death sentence. Not to say that it isn't fun.

The second half of this shows quite clearly you didn't or you didn't even bother to objectively think on it. Simply put, HIV without medication inevitably leads to AIDs, and said medications are either tapped out production wise or the disease is becoming resistant to them.

However none of those places where those new strains are popping up are the USA so I really don't care. We can close our borders if we need to. Your article also said that HIV is becoming resistant to the easy forms of treatment.

Yes, because the uproar over the travel ban and the quarantine of medical professionals who came back here after the Ebola outbreak back in 2014 show closing the borders is completely politically possible, right? This isn't even getting into the fact that, due to the nature of our globalized economy, you can't shut the border down without causing an economic collapse nor does it address the fact they're already seeing large numbers of antibiotic resistance strains in Mexico and smaller numbers here in the U.S.

There are more powerful treatments available, mainly in the first world.

Which are insanely costly and limited in production, as the article outlines. Eventually, the disease will adapt to them to anyway; it only took it about ~20 years to do such with the current treatment options.

Also all diseases weather sexual or not are constantly becoming resistant to drugs. It's a fact of life and really isn't cause for concern especially as the article states that they aren't yet resistant but they might be. However it doesn't say how long till that "might be" happens.

This definitely confirms to me you didn't even read the headline of the article:

No I did read the headline I just forgot about it. I'm human not a damn robot. And who gives a flying fuck about the politics of it. If we need to close the borders we close the borders. Anyone who cares to disagree can get sent to some bumfuck nation.

Though I'm not to worried about anything. We survived one AIDS epidemic, sure we can survive another one.

Though this has jackshit to do with marriage

[Oil exporting People]

No I did read the headline I just forgot about it. I'm human not a damn robot. And who gives a flying fuck about the politics of it. If we need to close the borders we close the borders. Anyone who cares to disagree can get sent to some bumfuck nation.

Not saying I disagree with the sentiment here, but realistically, for political and economic reasons, such won't happen; we live in a Democratic system, where it simply can't be ordered without legal challenges that can't be overcome, as the Travel Ban issue showed.

Though I'm not to worried about anything. We survived one AIDS epidemic, sure we can survive another one.

We survived one because it was largely contained among one element of the population that is rather small, and had available medications to treat it. Such won't happen this time around.

Though this has jackshit to do with marriage

With Homosexual Marriage and increasing rates of AIDs (And STDS in general) found among Heterosexuals, should marriage change to a "poly" structure, it's a serious issue that will effect hundreds of millions as they will become vastly more exposed.

[Albrenia]

Is this new wave of AIDS or HIV transmitted in a new method? Otherwise I don't see why it will be afflicting a far larger slice of the population than previously.

[Thermodolia]

No I did read the headline I just forgot about it. I'm human not a damn robot. And who gives a flying fuck about the politics of it. If we need to close the borders we close the borders. Anyone who cares to disagree can get sent to some bumfuck nation.

Not saying I disagree with the sentiment here, but realistically, for political and economic reasons, such won't happen; we live in a Democratic system, where it simply can't be ordered without legal challenges that can't be overcome, as the Travel Ban issue showed.

Though I'm not to worried about anything. We survived one AIDS epidemic, sure we can survive another one.

We survived one because it was largely contained among one element of the population that is rather small, and had available medications to treat it. Such won't happen this time around.

Though this has jackshit to do with marriage

With Homosexual Marriage and increasing rates of AIDs (And STDS in general) found among Heterosexuals, should marriage change to a "poly" structure, it's a serious issue that will effect hundreds of millions as they will become vastly more exposed.

Marriage isn't going to be "poly" anything for a long damn time. At the moment it's to legally complicated to have polygamy. Homosexual marriage in of itself is going to cause a rise in HIV, which is the term you want to use AIDS comes later and you can't actually contract it without having HIV first, especially if they are monogamous.

[Thermodolia]

Is this new wave of AIDS or HIV transmitted in a new method? Otherwise I don't see why it will be afflicting a far larger slice of the population than previously.

Eh kinda. The rise in drug use isn't helping. That's mainly where it's coming from, drug users sharing needles and those who are coming from nations where HIV is high and they don't know their status.

The hole drug thing is reason number why I do not date drug users of any kind, well that and they drain your bank account.

[Oil exporting People]

Marriage isn't going to be "poly" anything for a long damn time. At the moment it's to legally complicated to have polygamy. Homosexual marriage in of itself is going to cause a rise in HIV, which is the term you want to use AIDS comes later and you can't actually contract it without having HIV first, especially if they are monogamous.

Again, not disagreeing with your analysis that "poly" marriages won't work, but this whole line is in response to those that think such arrangements are physically healthy, in contravention of all evidence.

Is this new wave of AIDS or HIV transmitted in a new method? Otherwise I don't see why it will be afflicting a far larger slice of the population than previously.

Production has been maxed out since 2012, and thus the increase in cases means there simply isn't enough medicine to go around. Even ignoring such, HIV is rapidly becoming drug resistant, with cases in Mexico approaching 20% of all infections, for example.

[Albrenia]

I guess in the future we'll all need to be more careful with whom we perform certain acts with. Also not share needles, and be careful not to step on needles.

[Oil exporting People]

I guess in the future we'll all need to be more careful with whom we perform certain acts with. Also not share needles, and be careful not to step on needles.

Or whom we get Blood donations from.

[Albrenia]

I guess in the future we'll all need to be more careful with whom we perform certain acts with. Also not share needles, and be careful not to step on needles.

Or whom we get Blood donations from.

Which makes me shudder, considering how lax the standards are for paid collection of blood is from in the US. You literally just have to tick 'no' on a box to qualify.

[Costa Fierro]

I'd like a poll option for those of us who are already happily married, thank you very much.

Happily married eh? Blink twice for yes.

[Costa Fierro]

Yes. Because men and women have the tendency, or need, to survive and that also means to procreate. Women can procreate if there are more women than men or vice versa. This is not the case for men, as the ''strongest'' men would get the women. This would lead to social instability. I think this is one reason to defend marriage/monogamy.

I meant the "if the amount of men surpasses that of women" part. Humans have more or less a 1:1 sex ratio, so that's basically never been the case?

Nope. China has a male surplus numbering in the tens of millions.

[The Grene Knyght]

I meant the "if the amount of men surpasses that of women" part. Humans have more or less a 1:1 sex ratio, so that's basically never been the case?

Nope. China has a male surplus numbering in the tens of millions.

How significant is the surplus relative to the population though.
1:1.05? Something like that?

[Costa Fierro]

How significant is the surplus relative to the population though.

Significant enough.

[Albrenia]

I meant the "if the amount of men surpasses that of women" part. Humans have more or less a 1:1 sex ratio, so that's basically never been the case?

Nope. China has a male surplus numbering in the tens of millions.

Isn't that due to the previous trend of killing females in favour of males?

[New haven america]

Nope. China has a male surplus numbering in the tens of millions.

Isn't that due to the previous trend of killing females in favour of males?

Pretty much.

Males are considered more important in Chinese society, and thanks to the 1 child policy the Han have been aborting the females so that they could try again for a male. (I mention the Han specifically because the policy really only applied to the majority ethnic group)

[Oil exporting People]

I meant the "if the amount of men surpasses that of women" part. Humans have more or less a 1:1 sex ratio, so that's basically never been the case?

Humans have always, for the most part, had a male surplus in terms of birth; most likely due to simple fact males have higher mortality rates than females. Interestingly enough, this might be changing though due to global warming causing higher female birthrates. This has a precedent in that we've known for a while that tropical nations have higher female birth rates (51 to 49 in the Central African Republic, for example) and that most females are born in winter (thus were conceived during the warm times of spring and summer).

But enough digression on my part.

[Katganistan]

Yeah, and if you don't think that her children will resent your treating her that way, boy are you in for a surprise.

They will resent me putting them 1st 100% of the time? Its not like I will treat her badly I just won't really spend time with her outside of making more babies. I think the kids would be happy for me always putting them 1st and always siding with them. I will never yell at them (unless they are about to put themselves in extreme physical danger and I don't have time to be calm.)

Aside from when you're yelling at her, controlling her access to any transportation and or money, and treating her as property, you mean.

Yeah, they are going to hate seeing her treated like garbage.

[Katganistan]

so your plan is to lie to your potential mate till she marries you and has the first kid?

If you call with holding information lying, everything I say will be true I just won't say everything.

Yes, it's a lie of omission.
Seriously, this is nothing but taking advantage of and abusing your imaginary future mate.

[Katganistan]

If im lucky Ill just beable to use that site that pares together people who only want to cohabitate/marry to have kids and not for the relationship between the other person. Since they put people together based on parenting styles and other things. All this after college or at least last year so that I can graduate around the time I have my 1st child. If not then ill just have to fake a lot of emotions to get it done. I would expect someone to want to finish school 1st.

And remember kids, don't do liberalism.

Seriously, if that's the common thinking in the modern society then I don't want to live on it anymore, might aswell build a shack inside the forest and live there for the rest of my life.

This is no 'liberalism' I've every heard of.